TUCSON, Ariz. — Tracy Davis and David Fink come up big at Hall of Fame & Women’s Classic.  The former Women’s Classic champ Davis took back the Classic title over defending champ Jennifer Schmitt in two games.  On the Men’s side, Fink repeated his win over Sean Lenning in singles and teamed with Braulio Ruiz to take the doubles over Lenning and Dylan Key.

Davis made a statement in the first game, utilizing her power serve with relentless precision that kept the experienced Schmitt on her heals.  While Schmitt adjusted to the speed, she couldn’t mount a comeback bid losing 21-8.  In the second, Davis once again built a big leads of 13-4 and 17-8 and appeared to be on the way to victory.  But Schmitt adjusted, hitting defensive shots which forced Davis to the back of the court and neutralized her power.  Schmitt kept chipping away at her deficit and nearly tied the score before Davis earned the side out leading 18-17.  At that point, Schmitt burned her final timeout to regroup and make a final push for a tiebreaker. 

When play resumed, Davis regained her early match form to get out of her scoring slump and score match point on a drive along the wall to the deep left which wasn’t returned. 

This year’s Men’s Open final was a rematch from 2016; however, it didn’t have the same drama as last year’s contest.  In less than 30 minutes, David Fink successfully defended his Hall of Fame title, making quick work of Sean Lenning who was hampered by a left shoulder injury suffered last month.  While one-armed Lenning’s heroics worked in earlier rounds, Fink refused to rally with his opponent, aggressively killing the ball and ending rallies with every opportunity. 

In the doubles final, Fink and partner Braulio Ruiz kept their foots on the gas pedal, relentlessly forcing shots to Lenning’s left and serving to Lenning’s partner, Dylan Key.  The young Key made several big plays and held his own with the top pros on the same court but ultimately couldn’t withstand the firepower of Fink and Ruiz, falling in two games, 21-14, 21-8. 

Video replays of the Women’s Classic and Men’s Open finals are available on the United States Handball Association’s Facebook (no audio).  

See draws and results HERE. 

Women’s Classic Drop-Down Divisions:

5th Place Playoff (from Quarterfinals)

Semifinals:  Amy Gross d. Kena Byrd-Jackson, 12, 15; Donna Mosely d. Terry Bowman, 16, 13.

5th Place final:  Gross d. Mosely, 5, 16.

7th Pace final:  Bowman d. Byrd-Jackson, (11), 20, 7.

A Singles (9th Place Playoff from Round of 16)

Quarterfinals:  Dimas, BYE; Sojourner d. Camacho, 14, 15; Della Croce d. Smith, (16), 12, 9; Valdillez d. Norenberg, 13, 1.

Semifinals:  Dimas d. Sojourner, 6, 3; Valdillez d. Della Croce, 16, 18.

Final:  Dimas d. Valdillez, 4, 4.

B Singles Consolation (from A)

Semifinals:  Camacho, BYE; Smith d. Norenberg, 1, 9.

Final:  Camacho d. Smith, 12, 14.

As if playing two matches on Saturday weren’t enough, WPH’s David Fink led a youth handball clinic for juniors and collegiate students at the TRC once play was finished.  A number of kids attended to learn basic fundamentals and winning strategies to improve their games. Photo courtesy of WPH. 

Players, families and fans gathered at the Hall of Fame for the annual Celebration Banquet.  People in attendance enjoyed dinner and had a chance to tour the Hall of Fame Museum.  Nathaniel Frank was given the Marty Decatur Sportsmanship Award. 

See times, draws and each day’s result HERE. 

SPECIAL THANKS TO THE TREMENDOUS SUPPORT RECEIVED BY OUR TOURNAMENT SPONSORS AND SUPPORTERS: 

By Tom Sove, Game Committee Chair

Rules are intended to ensure fair play and safety. The current glove rule, Rule 2.3.B Style   states:  The usual hitting surfaces of the glove must be light in color and made of a soft material or leather. The fingers may not be webbed, connected or removed.  Any gloves which provide an unfair advantage are not allowed, and must be replaced at the referee’s direction. At the recent January, 2017 board meeting the USHA passed a change to the glove rule, adding the phrase “with wetness easily detected by visual inspection” to the end of the first sentence.

As we all know, the only reason we wear gloves is to keep the ball dry to prevent the ball from sliding during the rally. Obviously, a ball that slides can create an unfair advantage for one player and a disadvantage for the other. This wording is intended to augment the already existing wording that the glove material must be light in color. The USHA believes that fairness demands that a referee may be able to ascertain when a glove is wet enough to affect play before it happens. Hence the wording incorporated includes “light in color” and “wetness detected by visual inspection”.  Without a quick visual inspection (at times, from about 20 feet away), if a referee can only determine wet gloves by rubbing a ball on the glove it is too late to prevent slides, which can certainly create an unnecessary delay in a match. Repeatedly needing to do this creates additional problems.

Recent trends in glove manufacturing have resulted in the introduction of some gloves that do not meet this criteria. They are neither light in color nor readily show wetness by visual inspection. We purposefully did not delineate either glove brands or glove material in the hope that these same providers/manufacturers will still pursue viable gloves that meet the parameters of the rule, and thereby offer more options to our players. In fact, the USHA was actively pursuing a new glove using a synthetic material. However, we were unconvinced the material would meet our own criteria and we halted our efforts.

This issue was brought to us by the WPH. Their valuable input underscored the need to amend the rule. According to David Fink, referees were having problems detecting wet gloves in their pro tournaments, resulting in unfortunate slides affecting outcomes of matches. Not only were officials having problems, even some players weren’t sure if their gloves were wet. Our final version of the rule change was shared with the WPH, and they enthusiastically endorsed and embraced it.  Dave Vincent writes: “I support the article, wording and direction you are taking here.”

The application of the rule is simple. The referee may enforce the removal of an offending glove at any time during a match.

*This article will be published in the next issue of HANDBALL MAGAZINE.